Showing posts with label CAIR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAIR. Show all posts

Monday, October 23, 2023

I just received a press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations declaring that they consider Israel's attacks on Hamas to be "genocide."

It is disgusting. CAIR fully accepts Hamas' lies about how many were killed.

Looking back, their press releases since the massacre on October 7 have been truly disgusting. The very first one, drafted when the first news of a huge attack on Israeli civilians were being published, was a blatant attempt to change the subject and imply that no matter what happened to the Jews, it is their own fault.

It was an obvious attempt to exonerate Hamas and blame Jews for being massacred.

The following Monday, their first statement was more of the same, "CAIR Urges Congress to Address Root Cause of Mideast Violence - Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Lands." They reluctantly said that anyone calling up their representatives should first "acknowledge the loss of lives and recognize the humanity on both sides, including Israelis and Palestinians" before urging Congress to do exactly what Hamas wants it to do: handcuff Israel.

CAIR never condemned Hamas. Not once - not even when Hamas was blowing  up buses and pizza shops in the second intifada. 

This is even though the only genocide in the Middle East was Hamas' attempt to murder every Jewish man, woman, senior citizen an child it could find. 

This is even though CAIR claims that it always condemns terrorism, no matter who the guilty party is. 




It never condemned the rapes or murders or kidnappings. It never called on Hamas to release the hostages. 

This last part is interesting because CAIR has called for the release of other hostages, even those held by Muslims in Iraq and by the Taliban.

Apparently, CAIR condones the attacks on Israelis. There is no other explanation. 

Moreover, CAIR condemned Israel for the Islamic Jihad rocket that fell in the parking lot of a hospital. There has been no correction even as every major government and independent researchers all agree that Israel had nothing to do with it.

Remember, CAIR was consulted on the US strategy to fight antisemitism. 

But its website makes it quite clear: CAIR implicitly supports Hamas and everything it does.







Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, June 02, 2023

By Daled Amos

Last week the Biden Administration unveiled its plan to address the growing antisemitic violence that threatens Jews nationwide.

No one can deny the importance of fighting antisemitism, and the attempt by the Biden Administration to formulate a plan to do this is of course a positive step. However, some issues undermine Biden's plan from the outset.

One of the organizations Biden included to implement the plan is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is not known to be friendly to Jews. On November 27, 2021, Zahra Billoo -- the executive director of CAIR in San Francisco -- described to the American Muslims for Palestine’s (AMP) Annual Convention for Palestine that Zionists and their synagogues are enemies:
We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation[sic]. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Just because they're your friend today doesn't mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights…know your enemies, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that they are your enemies.

CAIR claimed that Billoo's comments were taken out of context and CAIR would "continue to proudly stand by Zahra." According to the White House Fact Sheet, this is the same CAIR that will be responsible to "launch a tour to educate religious communities about steps they can take to protect their houses of worship from hate incidents."

Another organization listed on the fact sheet as part of the fight against antisemitism is the National Action Network, which was founded by Al Sharpton, and used by Sharpton in 1995 to stage the protest at Freddy’s Fashion Martduring which Jews were called “bloodsuckers” and the protesters threatened, “We’re going to burn and loot the Jews.” In the end, one protester killed 7 people. In December 2019, the executive director of NAN's North Jersey chapter -- Carilyn Oliver Fair -- stood up for Jersey City Board of Education trustee Joan Terrell-Paige. Paige had defended the 2 shooters who targeted a kosher grocery store, killing 3 people inside and another at a different location. According to Fair:

[Paige] said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth. So where is this anti-Semitism coming in? I am not getting it.

Obviously, in order to fight antisemitism, it is necessary to recognize antisemitism when it occurs. For that reason, many organizations wanted to see the Biden Administration explicitly and unambiguously support the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is widely accepted as the gold standard for defining antisemitism. It is used by the US, has been adopted by 26 US states and by 36 other countries -- as well as by the EU, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe.

Contrast the wide acceptance of the IHRA definition with the claim made by J Street. 

Dylan Williams, senior vice president for policy and strategy at J Street claims that the IHRA is no help at all in the fight against antisemitism:
efforts to give the force of law to a single, controversial definition of antisemitism that focuses disproportionately on criticism of Israel does a disservice to Jewish Americans targeted by this hatred.

What has been widely accepted is, according to J Street, controversial. And as far as criticism of Israel is concerned, the IHRA makes it very clear:

criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

J Street is also among those who claimed that IHRA would be a threat to freedom of expression and criticism of Israel. This is a claim that has been made without giving actual, concrete instances where this has happened. On the other hand, a report on Understanding Jewish Experience in Higher Education has been published in the UK. It was researched over a 6 month period at 56 different universities. Besides noting the "underlying fear of being targeted," the report went further and pointed out:

Despite concerns expressed by some academics, none of the 56 universities spoken to could identify a single example of the [IHRA] definition restricting freedom of expression. [emphasis added]

Instead of using the IHRA definition, J Street is pushing for the definition of antisemitism given by the Nexus Task Force.

According to the Nexus definition:

Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism. (There are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently, e.g., some people care about Israel more; others may pay more attention because Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid). [emphasis added]

This is wonderful news!

As Lea Speyer points out, we can now attribute the UNHRC fixation with singling out Israel to it either "caring more" about Israel or because of Israel's "special relationship" with the US. The Nexus excuse for applying a double standard to Israel and singling it out for condemnation and punishment is worse than laughable.

Yet J Street supports the Nexus definition -- and no wonder.



Ben-Ami's interest in a contrary definition of antisemitism is not surprising. In fact, it could very well be that J Street opposes the IHRA definition on principle -- if it were to accept the IHRA definition, many of those whom J Street supports and allies itself with could be labeled as antisemitic.

For example, that would explain why J Street couldn't get their story straight about receiving money from George Soros.

In 2010, Eli Lake wrote in the Washington Times that from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 Soros and his 2 children contributed $245,000 to J Street. Lake writes that at the very time that Ben-Ami claimed to be "very proud" to have the support of Soros, the J Street website featured a "myths and facts" section which denied receiving any money:
George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.
Soon afterward, the website was amended with an addition:
J Street has said it doesn’t receive money from George Soros, but now news reports indicate that he has in fact contributed.

At the same time, a spokesman for Soros had no problem stating publicly stated Soros was very clear about his desire to be involved with the group and “has made no secret of his support" for J Street.

J Street's reluctance was based on Soros's anti-Israel stance. 

I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence — but I don’t want to be part of it.
A 2004 article in Commentary notes that in a speech to the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research in 2003, "Soros likened the behavior of Israel to that of the Nazis," an example of "his coldness toward the Jewish state. The IHRA definition explicitly points to comparisons of Israel with Nazis as antisemitic. On the other hand, the Nexus definition does not.

The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation -- not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one -- has reached a particularly dangerous point.
Soros's claim that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian Arabs mendacious.

Tablet Magazine noted in 2016 that in 14 grants since 2001, Soros had given over $2.5million to Adalah, which accuses Israel of war crimes. In 2013, the groups published a database claiming to have found 101 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian Arabs. NGO Monitor has an article debunking Adalah's claim.

The Tablet article, Soros Hack Reveals Evidence of Systemic Anti-Israel Bias, concludes:
there can be little doubt about the Soros-funded extensive and deliberate effort to delegitimize Israel while doing comparatively very little to address real human rights abuses in the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere in the region.
No wonder J Street was reluctant to admit to accepting money from Soros.

Similarly, J Street -- which claims to be pro-Israel -- has itself supported politicians who are antagonistic towards Israel.

Take for example J Street's initial support for Rashida Tlaib:



J Street supported Tlaib despite the fact that Tlaib:
o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh
o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
o accused Harris of “racism” for meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.
Did J Street consider any of this to be antisemitic? Apparently not. Maybe all of this merely falls under the category of criticism when in fact Tlaib was demonizing Israel.

The only reason they withdrew support from her was that Tlaib did not support a two-state solution. Nevertheless, J Street still gushed over Tlaib:
We strongly support and are encouraged by her commitment to social justice, and we are inspired by her determination to bring the voice of underrepresented communities to Capitol Hill. We wish her and her campaign well, and we look forward to a close working relationship with her and her office when she takes her seat in Congress next year. [emphasis added]
Then there is Betty McCollum, senator from Minnesota, who in 2018 was the first elected US official to accuse Israel of Apartheid.

Rep. McCollum has been a strong ally of the pro-Israel, pro-peace community since her election to Congress.

While Amnesty and HRW had to cobble together different definitions of Apartheid to single out Israel, McCollum did not back up her claim, and J Street simply ignored it.

In its most recent support for McCollum, J Street no longer praises McCollum for being pro-Israel -- but rather pro-Palestinian and uncritically accepts her claim that Israel holds children in military detention and praises her stance against evictions from Masafer Yatta without any context:


J Street also supports Mark Pocan, the representative from Wisconsin, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts while not attending the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying that Pocan "chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event."

Pocan's sole support for boycotting Israel as opposed to any other country represents a double-standard, which explains his hiding his support at the time.

In 2016, Pocan was one of a handful of Democratic congressmen who met an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Shawan Jabarin was described as the General Director of Al-Haq, for a discussion on “Palestinian political prisoners,” but in fact
A member of the PFLP, Jabarin was convicted for his efforts to enlist support abroad for attacks on Israel. He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was released after nine months due to respiratory difficulties.
But J Street continues to support Pocan, in part because


Lacking in J Street's description is any mention that the destruction of homes is a measure taken against terrorist attacks or that "expanded settlements" refers to the building of homes within settlements, not building additional settlements. Similarly, J Street gives no details on how Pocan's "strong support for Israel's security" manifests itself or support for human rights of Israelis facing terrorist attacks. Also, no mention of Pocan's support of BDS and how it fits in with the J Street policy of not supporting BDS but not opposing BDS that supports a two-state solution, assuming that such a thing exists.

J Street's part in drawing up the Nexus definition of antisemitism shows that their support is not based on inpartiality. This is the definition they want and their claims about the flaws in the IHRA definition is merely gaslighting in an attempt to defend and maintain the double-standard that Israel is held to in the UN and by self-proclaimed "human rights" groups. J Street supports the disproportionate focus on Israel.

Back in the day, Ben-Ami bragged that J Street saw itself as Obama's "block back."
Just who is J Street blocking for now?




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, March 28, 2023




Anti-Israel organizations have been organizing boycotts of Israeli dates every Ramadan for years. 

Here's a campaign from 2008. 

This year there are anti-Israel date campaigns from CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine, Inminds and many other Muslim organizations. 

Let's see how effective these campaigns have been.

In 2008, when these campaigns began, Israel was the fourth-largest exporter of dates in the world, behind Tunisia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. It had exports of 19 million kilograms with a value of some $50 million.

By 2021, Israel was the top exporter of dates worldwide, exporting nearly 120 million kilograms with a value of $332 million! It maintained that position in 2022.

While Israel does not export as many dates as some other countries, the dollar value is much higher - because the popular Mejdool dates are more expensive and Israel dominates that market. 

Here are some charts of the top date exporters in recent years from another source:


It seems that Israel's date industry  - which is now Israel's second biggest export crop after citrus - has thrived under the Muslim boycott of Israeli dates. 

This is not just a BDS fail - it is a BDS nakba!

For Israeli date growers, it definitely is a Ramadan Mubarak!




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, March 09, 2023

From Ian:

Ilan Halimi’s murder and the whitewashing of Muslim antisemitism
Seventeen years ago, a Parisian gang calling itself “the Barbarians” lured a twenty-three-year-old cell-phone salesman named Ilan Halimi onto its turf, tortured him for three weeks while reciting Quranic verses, and then left him to die by the roadside. Halimi’s murder is often seen as the beginning of the current era of anti-Semitic violence in France. Eleanor Krasne comments on the repeated failure of the French government, and even of Jewish leaders, to confront the sources of such violence:

The French authorities initially neglected to explore the anti-Semitic nature of the crime, but after a three-week search, they finally caught the gang’s leader, Youssef Fofana. When the case went to trial, Fofana wore a t-shirt that said “Allahu Akbar,” and when asked to state his identity said, “My name is Arab, armed African rebellion Salafist barbarian army, and I was born on February 13, 2006 in Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois.” In other words, Fofana boasted of his allegiance to Salafism, a political-religious movement within Islam that seeks to establish a global caliphate. . . . Fofana was also saying that he was “born” the moment Ilan Halimi died.

Muslims are not solely responsible for French anti-Semitism, nor is every Muslim an anti-Semite. However, radical Islam’s role in French anti-Semitism must not be overlooked. Yet . . . French and American organizations that . . . advocate for Jews seem to shy away from confronting the radical Islamic theology behind these attacks, particularly when commemorating Ilan Halimi’s murder.

Confronting modern-day anti-Semitism in France means confronting the ideology behind it. France is home to 450,000 Jews and a growing community of over three million Muslims. Simone Rodan Benzaquen, the American Jewish Committee’s director in France, wrote in 2017 that Islamic anti-Semitism in France is a result of a variety of factors, “including manipulation of the Palestinian cause, failure of integration into French society, radical preachers and the funding of mosques, and satellite television stations broadcasting a steady stream of anti-Semitic discourse.”

Unfortunately, Benzaquen is correct, and other organizations must join her in facing the reality of Islamic anti-Semitism in France.
ITP: Another Gaping Hole in the Islamist Antisemitism Con
In its statement promoted by CAIR's national office, CAIR-New York Executive Director Afaf Nasher also noted "the disturbing rise in anti-Asian bigotry nationwide."

"All Americans, regardless of their background," he said, must be able to walk down the street without fear of a racist attack."

This is true. Correspondingly, there has been a disturbing rise in antisemitic bigotry in New York city and nationwide. A Times of Israel analysis of NYPD data found an anti-Jewish attack every 33 hours in New York. Masoud presents a clear example of the danger such blind hate about Jews and the Jewish state can pose.

But CAIR cannot bring itself to acknowledge, let alone condemn him. This is an organization with a decades-long record of antisemitism, including co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad's repeated insinuations that Jews are "pushing the United States" to advance policies "at the expense of American interests."

In 2014, as ISIS rampaged and Hamas terrorism instigated war in Gaza, Awad called Israel "the biggest threat to world peace and security." Awad also believes Tel Aviv is "occupied" territory. His San Francisco director Zahra Billoo believes pro-Israel Jews are out to hurt Muslims and should be shunned entirely. CAIR stands behind her.

CAIR claims it merely criticizes Israeli policy, as if the question whether a country should exist is a policy up for debate.

Was Masoud merely criticizing Zionists? His "veil of 'anti-Zionism' is pathetically thin in this case," prosecutors wrote. "As an initial matter, the defendant is not an equal opportunity anti-Zionist. He did not attack 'Evangelical Christians . . . who identify with the State of Israel' ... Instead, he repeatedly attacked Jewish men."

In October, CAIR condemned antisemitic material left outside homes in Wyoming.

"Those targeting the Jewish community with antisemitic hate must be repudiated by all Americans," CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. "The mainstreaming of bigotry in any form must never be tolerated or excused."

But CAIR mainstreams antisemitism when it stands by frothing haters like Billoo, and when it cannot muster the nerve to condemn an ideological ally like Sadaah Masoud. Antisemitism can't be viewed conditionally. If you can't even bring yourself to condemn premeditated beatings of random Jews, you can't expect to be believed when say you oppose antisemitism by condemning leaflets.
America's Tradition in Fighting Boycotts of Israel
In 1975, President Gerald Ford called for regulations prohibiting U.S. companies from "complying in any way with [the Arab] boycott," and declared emphatically that the United States would not "countenance the translation of any foreign prejudice into domestic discrimination against American citizens." Congress quickly heeded the call, passing not one but two pieces of critical bipartisan legislation: the Ribicoff Amendment assessed steep tax penalties against U.S. companies that participate in the Arab Boycott, and the Export Administration Amendments of 1977 directed the president to prohibit American companies from joining the Arab boycott. In signing that law, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged that the Arab Boycott, though nominally focused on Israel, was in fact "aimed at Jewish members of our society." The U.S. Office of Antiboycott Compliance has been enforcing this regime ever since, on the bipartisan understanding that the boycott of Israel constitutes a tool of discrimination, not protected expression.

And the federal government was not alone in its anti-boycott effort. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, at least 13 states—red and blue—took aggressive legislative steps to prevent U.S. companies from joining the Arab boycott. New York's rule was strikingly similar to the anti-BDS laws of today. In fact, it went further, prohibiting "discrimination," "boycotting," or "blacklisting" based on "national origin" or because a person has done business with Israeli firms. When Gov. Michael Dukakis signed the Massachusetts bill into law, he explained that he wished to send an "unequivocal message" that Massachusetts would "not stand for this type of blatant discrimination" against its Jewish residents.

Today's anti-BDS laws spring from the same pair of political judgments that animate this 50-year tradition of anti-boycott legislation. The first is that the boycott isn't speech, but instead economic conduct that can be freely regulated, consistent with the First Amendment. And the second is that, in the case of Israel, the boycott constitutes discrimination, and not desirable social action.

The tradition of anti-boycott legislation lives on because its historical foundations are fundamentally true. The first boycott against the Jews of Israel took place in the 1890s, and its organizers—the Arab political associations of Mandatory Palestine—could not have been clearer about their anti-Jewish objectives: "Don't buy from the Jews," they declared, "come and bargain with the Arab merchant... We must completely boycott the Jews." And in 1933, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem grew in political prominence, he called for systematic boycotts against the Jews of Palestine and urged Nazi Germany to do the same.

BDS's appeal to "history and tradition" should ring hollow. For 50 years, state and federal law makers have regulated Israel boycotts, on the understanding that they were conceived in antisemitism and cannot escape its taint. In the court of history, it's the state lawmakers, and not the activists, who enjoy the upper hand.

Sunday, December 18, 2022

Lately, anti-Israel groups like Samidoun, Within Our Lifetime and others have started a campaign to pressure the US to free three prisoners who were convicted of sending millions of dollars to Hamas terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation case:



The lies are egregious. Since  many people do not recall the case from the 2000s, here is a refresher on exactly what these people did and why they are in prison.

These are excerpts from a press release from the Department of Justice, May 27, 2009. that described the details of the case:

Today, in federal court in Dallas, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis sentenced the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in November 2008 on charges of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

HLF was incorporated by Shukri Abu Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, and Ghassan Elashi. Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh worked as fund raisers. Together, with others, they provided material support to the Hamas movement.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, of Garland, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and one count of filing a false tax return.

Ghassan Elashi, 55, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abu Baker, and one additional count of filing a false tax return.

Mufid Abdulqader, 49, of Richardson, Texas, was sentenced to a total of 20 years in prison. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, one count of conspiracy to provide goods, funds, and services to a specially designated terrorist, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The Court reaffirmed the jury’s $12.4 million money judgment against all the defendants, with the exception of El Mezain, who was not convicted of money laundering.

From its inception, HLF existed to support Hamas. Before HLF was designed as a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department and shut down in December 2001, it was the largest U.S. Muslim charity. It was based in Richardson, Texas, a Dallas suburb. The "material support statute," as it is commonly referred to, was enacted in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. That statute recognizes that money is fungible, and that money in the hands of a terrorist organization — even if for so called charitable purposes — supports that organization’s overall terrorist objectives.

The government presented evidence at trial that, as the U.S. began to scrutinize individuals and entities in the U.S. who were raising funds for terrorist groups in the mid-1990s, the HLF intentionally hid its financial support for Hamas behind the guise of charitable donations. HLF and these five defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support to Hamas and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.

The government’s case included testimony that in the early 1990's, Hamas’ parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations in the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and raise money for Hamas. The government’s case also included testimony about Hamas material found in zakat committees. The defendants sent HLF-raised funds to Hamas-controlled zakat committees and charitable societies in the West Bank and Gaza. Zakat is an Arabic word referring to the religious obligation to give alms.

HLF became the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas. According to a wiretap of a 1993 Palestine Committee meeting in Philadelphia, former HLF President and CEO Shukri Abu Baker, spoke about playing down their Hamas ties in order to keep raising money in the U.S. Another wiretapped phone call included Abdulrahman Odeh, HLF’s New Jersey representative, referring to a suicide bombing as "a beautiful operation."

The government also presented evidence that several HLF defendants have family members who are Hamas leaders, including Hamas’ political chief, Mousa Abu Marzook, who is married to a cousin of Ghassan Elashi, HLF’s former Chairman of the Board. Ghassan Elashi, who also served as the vice-president of marketing for Infocom Corporation, is currently serving an 80-month sentence following his conviction on several charges related to export violations. 

The defendants provided financial support to the families of Hamas martyrs, detainees, and activists knowing and intending that such assistance would support the Hamas terrorist organization. Since 1995, when it first became illegal to provide financial support to Hamas, HLF provided approximately $12.4 million in funding to Hamas through various Hamas-affiliated committees and organizations located in Palestinian-controlled areas and elsewhere.

During trial, the government also presented evidence that HLF was so concerned about investigators uncovering the group’s intentions that they kept a manual entitled "The Foundation’s Policies and Procedures." HLF followed various security procedures outlined in the manual to include hiring a security company to search the HLF for listening devices, ordering defendant Haitham Maghawri, a fugitive, to take training on advanced methods in detecting wiretaps, shredding documents after board meetings, and maintaining incriminating documents in off-site locations.

And now they claim that these Hamas supporters were merely sending money to orphans and widows.

You cannot believe a word that the anti-Israel groups say. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, November 17, 2022

From Ian:

Antisemitism should test America’s conscience
The memory of the brutal Holocaust may be fast fading; yet, the evil that brought it about appears to be creeping upon us, once again. Hate speech, defamation, history revision and violence are being directed towards Jews of all ages. Perpetrators appear to be gradually “testing the waters” to see what they can get away with before upping the ante of hostilities; especially in a freedom of speech driven America.

Enemies of Jews recognize now, unlike in times gone by, that Jews no longer stand alone, and will not quietly succumb to another existential threat. This is due, in no small part, to the existing sovereign State of Israel, which now serves as a vocal advocate and refuge for Jews since its rebirth in 1948. Anti-Jewish forces recognize that Israel will not sit idly by, while the blood of our people is spilt; as was the case in its absence, during the 1930’s and 40’s; enabling the “Final Solution” Holocaust.

Indigenous Israel is and never was merely incidental to Judaism, but rather integral to the Jewish faith and its survival. Our enemies appreciate this reality. The protection afforded is so formidable that those who hate us have come to the conclusion that they must first eliminate Israel before challenging our Jewish viability. To assist in their cause and by trial and error, they came upon diversionary tactics; including cloaking their hostility towards Jews under the guise of ‘Anti-Zionism.’

This augmented with the malicious “Boycott, Divestment and Sanction terror tactics (B.D.S.),” has gained traction within the media and support from some, self-labeled progressive politicians including a number who appear to reside within the legislative branch of our government; if not covertly elsewhere, as well.

Ignoring the present day escalating antipathy towards Israel and by extension towards Jews in Israel, Europe and now in the United States, is only serving to reinforce contempt for them, in general. The ugliness manifests through opportune acts of targeted property destruction, including defacing head-stones of our dead and violence towards our living where they feel they can get away with it.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Is Germany ending its ‘culture of memory’ of the Holocaust?
If the Israelis and Zionists are today’s Nazis, they should be attacked on the streets of Berlin, London, and Los Angeles. Germans may read that last year there was another 29% spike in antisemitic crimes in their cities – 3,027 in 2021. But why should they care? After all, they weren’t alive during World War II, let alone personally linked to Nazi Holocaust. In addition, in 2022, human rights NGOs like Amnesty International paint Israel as an apartheid state and antisemitic diplomats are given free rein to crank out one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly. Meanwhile, the German cultural elite, instead of rallying behind beleaguered Jewish citizens, greenlighted and defended a prestigious art exhibition rife with ugly antisemitic stereotypes.

And German Jews woke up on the anniversary of Kristallnacht to this catchy campaign on the KFC app: “Memorial Day of the Reichspogromnacht [Kristallnacht]: Treat yourself to more tender cheese with the crispy chicken. Now at KFCheese!”

Any wonder why a prominent German Jewish leader just announced he can’t live in Germany anymore? He’s leaving for Israel and urging the rest of German Jewry to follow.

It’s small solace that Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, had to personally intervene with the secretary-general of the Goethe Institute to cancel the event entirely.

Before it is too late, it’s time for Germany’s political and cultural elite to denounce all those who facilitate the demonization of Israelis; time to hold antisemites accountable for their deeds and crimes, whether from far right neo Nazis, Islamists, or Jew-haters from the far left; time to end blatant antisemitic exhibitions to dress up pornographic Jew-hatred as artistic freedom; time for all German states, cities, and municipalities to fully adopt and implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism; and to endorse the Bundestag vote that labeled the anti-peace Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as antisemitic.

For decades, Germany and Israel and Jews the world over have worked hard to rebuild relations between our people in the wake of the Shoah. But where are the German voices today that rebuke those who demonize Zionists as Nazis at home, and that speak out in the face of the Iranian regime’s serial Shoah denial? Where is the public display of solidarity with Jews?

Eight decades after the Shoah, Germany must connect younger generations to the nation’s self-declared culture of memory, or it will wake up one day soon to see Hitler’s dream of a Germany that is Judenfrei, free of any Jews, become a reality.
Liberal dark money network funnels cash to charity sponsoring Palestinian terror-linked group
AFGJ, which also got $210,000 from the New Venture Fund in 2020, is based in Arizona. The self-billed "progressive" and "anti-capitalist" group is an offshoot of the Nicaragua Network, a group that backed the socialist Sandinista political regime in Nicaragua.

Samidoun, which is one of up to 130 projects that AFGJ sponsors, was designated a terrorist group by Israel in February 2021 for operating as an arm of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. Samidoun aims to free Palestinian prisoners, who in many cases have ties to the PFLP, according to NGO Monitor, an Israeli watchdog group.

Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy found in a 2019 report that one Samidoun activist was "trained by" the Islamist terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon. That activist allegedly paid money to PFLP activists in Belgium.

On the heels of this report, Mastercard, Visa, and American Express said they would not allow their services to be used by Samidoun. Similarly, Paypal, Plaid, and Donorbox, three major global payment providers, shut down online donation portals for Samidoun in 2019 because of its PFLP ties.

In October, the Netherlands banned Samidoun's leaders from entering the European Union. Discover, the credit card company, said in 2021 it would quit processing donations to AFGJ because of its ties to Samidoun.

"If you have a mechanism that enables regular Americans to give money to a terrorist organization, that is a problem," Itai Reuveni, a spokesman for NGO Monitor, told the Washington Examiner.

Sunday, July 10, 2022




CAIR, the Council of American Islamic Relations, released a poll of American Muslims ahead of the midterm elections.

The poll asked them, "What are the most important, Muslim-related, foreign policy issues to you in this election year?" They could choose as many topics as they wanted.

Here were the results:

Israeli occupation of Palestine 90.5%
Chinese Genocide of Uyghur Muslims 87.4%
Oppression of Muslims in India 80.8% 
Burma Genocide of Rohingya Muslims 75.8% 
Starvation in Afghanistan 67.4% 
Discrimination against Muslims in France 61.9% 
Conflict in Yemen 59.6% 
Conflict in Syria 54.5% 
Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir 37.5% 
Civil war in Libya 31.6% 
Security in Somalia 29.1% 
Presidential Coup in Tunisia 24.2%

Tens of thousands of Muslims have been killed in Myanmar (Burma), Libya, and Yemen, and hundreds of thousands in Syria. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been ethnically cleansed from Myanmar. A million Muslims are incarcerated in China. A million Muslims are on the verge of starvation in Afghanistan. Yet when American Muslims only have to check a box to say they are concerned about these issues, they claim that the Palestinian issue is more important to them than direct physical threats to the lives of millions of Muslims. 

Moreover, look at the questions they didn't ask: Palestinians are discriminated against in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are still refugees from Syria, living in camps in Lebanon and Jordan. But these issues are so unimportant to CAIR that they are not even asked about! 

The American Muslims polled don't care about Palestinians - unless their oppression can be blamed on Jews.

These priorities cannot be explained by concern about Muslim lives, or by concern about Palestinian lives. 

The only explanation for this twisted set of priorities is Muslim American antisemitism. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Monday, May 16, 2022




CAIR and a bunch of other anti-Israel groups, most of them Muslim, issued this press release:

In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful  

We, the undersigned Muslim American organizations, express our unified support for the human rights of all people, including Palestinians. We also express our unified rejection of attempts to smear and silence members of our community who advocate for Palestinian human rights.  

Far too often, Muslim Americans and others come under attack for daring to call on our nation to stop supporting the Israeli government’s human rights abuses against the Palestinian people. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt’s decision to attack prominent Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian human rights activists, including college students, was only the latest example of this unacceptable pattern.  

This must end. Groups like the ADL must not marginalize and slander members of our community working for human rights. As Muslim Americans, we stand united with each other in upholding justice. We also stand with the Jewish Americans, Christian Americans, Arab Americans, Palestinian Americans, African Americans, and many others who have been unfairly attacked for supporting justice for all.  

The American Muslim community has vocally, collectively, and consistently stood up against all forms of hatred, including racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and anti-Palestinian racism. We have also worked closely with our friends and partners in the Jewish community and other communities to confront such threats.  

That’s because our faith teaches us to support justice for all people. No matter what attacks we face, we will continue to do so–together, God willing.  
There is literally nothing true in this statement.

Jonathan Greenblatt did not attack any "human rights organizations" or activists. He did not insult any Muslims as Muslims. 

He said that anti-Zionism - saying that Jews have no rights to a state of their own, and such a state is inherently illegitimate - is antisemitism. 

He didn't say that supporting Palestinians is antisemitic. Not one word of his speech indicated anything like that. On the contrary, he supports a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. He supports Palestinian human rights. He supports the right of protest. He supports the right to criticize Israel. 

This statement didn't even include the words "anti-Zionism" because they don't want to address the actual message Greenblatt said.  Instead of arguing with what Greenblatt said, they made up lies about what he said - and attacked that.

Now, that's dishonesty.

The Muslim groups' press release did say "Greenblatt also claimed that the ADL now considers any criticism of Zionism to be anti-Semitism." That is also a lie. He never said that. He never claimed that criticism of Israel or Zionism is antisemitism, because everything can be legitimately criticized. Wanting to see Israel destroyed and its adherents canceled and shunned is not "criticism."

It is hate.

In addition, the claim that these groups stand up against antisemitism is equally a lie. There are daily antisemitic attacks in Muslim and Arab media - Holocaust denial, calling Jews "sons of apes and pigs," denying Jewish history, claiming Jews are not real Jews - and not once have any of these organizations criticized fellow Muslims for antisemitism. 

The press release and statement show clearly that anti-Zionist organizations are incapable of telling the truth - because the truth proves that they are bigots. They instead lie about what their critics are saying to label them.

But beyond this, they are making a slander against all Muslims themselves. Because they are claiming, in the name of all Muslims, that there is no difference between being "pro-Palestinian" and being "anti-Zionist." They are saying, in the name of all Muslims, that those who marched on Sunday saying that murdering Jewish civilians in Israel is legitimate "resistance" are merely "supportive of Palestinian rights" and not hateful supporters of terror.

If their claim is correct, then according to their own logic, all Muslims are antisemitic bigots.

But they aren't. And Zionists don't make that claim.

These self-proclaimed leaders of Muslims are the bigots. And they have no compunction about supporting terrorism against, and the ethnic cleansing of, Jews in the Middle East. But beyond that, they want you to believe that they represent all Muslims - and in doing that, they do as much to spread Islamophobia as any right wing group.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, February 01, 2022


By Daled Amos

Zahra Billoo attacked US Jews last year at the American Muslims for Palestine Conference, singling out as 'enemies' not only Jewish organizations but also "Zionist Synagogues." CAIR's national office came to her defense. After all, Billoo is the executive director of their San Franciso branch.

Among those Billoo targeted:

We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses, because just because they are your friends today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights.

And Billoo also pointed out those Jewish groups that she finds 'acceptable':

Know your JVP leadership, your SJP leadership, your IfNotNow leadership, the list goes on. Know who is on your side. Build community with them, because the next thing I’m going to tell you is to know your enemies.

One would imagine that CAIR would agree with Billoo that groups like JVP and IfNotNow are groups that represent the kinds of Jews that are acceptable and can be associated with.

Which is kind of odd.

Because it is not at all clear if CAIR itself, which claims to be "America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization," actually represents the US Muslim community it claims to serve.

Irina Tsukerman, a human rights lawyer and national security analyst, writes that CAIR is one of those Muslim organizations that have fabricated their human rights image:

through a combination of generous political donations and influence campaigns, and by outright disinformation, presenting themselves as the mainstream of Muslim American communities and as the authoritative voices on Muslim civil rights issues. In reality, these groups are a fringe minority recycling and cross-pollinating members from charity to charity, who nevertheless go to great lengths to suppress alternative voices. CAIR and others receive the sort of support that nascent community organizations do not; they portray themselves as pan-Islamic organizations ignoring the fact that Muslim American communities are culturally and religious diverse.

They have also gained legitimacy by being the only game in town and forming partnerships with political training groups, intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and soft power institutions.

Going a step further, Abdullah Antepli, Associate Professor of the Practice of Interfaith Relations at Duke University, has stated not only that Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA represent only a small fraction of the Muslim community in the US, but that such organizations pose a danger to American Muslims as well:

They don’t represent in any significant portion of the American Muslim community. They represent the organized Muslim community space, which is more or less like 10%. And they are bullying and thought policing that space irresponsibly, reprehensive really with so many consequences to the American Islam and American Muslim community.

Their damage is not limited to 10%. They are further alienating American Muslim communities. They are further marginalizing American Islam. They are damaging the image of Islam as a religion and Muslims as Americans, Muslims as a people. But by all means, they are not representative. [emphasis added]

This description of CAIR as a fringe group claiming a larger role for itself than it actually has, is supported by a Gallup poll published in 2011.


The poll supports CAIR's claim to be the largest organization representing the Muslim community -- if you compare it to how tiny the support is for the other groups. However, the fact that the majority of Muslim men did not think any Muslim organizations represented their interests or, put another way, that 88% of Muslim men did not think CAIR represented them is revealing. And the responses of female Muslims was no better.

But why doesn't CAIR have a large following?

In 2007, The Washington Examiner published information on the number of CAIR's members based on CAIR's tax records. It found that CAIR's membership plummeted from 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006. Their annual income based on dues fell from $732,765 in 2000 when dues were $25, to $58,750 in 2016 when dues were higher at $35.

The terror attacks in 2001 may account for some of this.

But the article quotes M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who puts the blame on CAIR itself:

CAIR marginalized itself by exploiting the media attention it garnered in order to promote 'victimization issues' at the expense of representing the priorities of the American Muslims
CAIR's sympathy for Islamism combined with its apparent inability to condemn Muslim terrorist groups was a turn-off for American Muslims who did not share their ideology.
o  Some Muslims did not want to join an organization that may be linked to other groups that finance terrorism

According to The Washington Examiner, as a result of a shrinking membership and decreasing dues --

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR’s budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

It would have been nice to know more about who was making those contributions because it seems likely that CAIR would have been more representative of the desires of those major contributors than to the few members who were paying dues.

Maybe it's time for another look at CAIR's membership and funding?

Another indication of CAIR's desperation is noted in the conclusion to the article, where it notes how CAIR exaggerates its role on behalf of the Muslim community:

CAIR constantly notes in its press releases that it cooperates with federal law-enforcement activities and claims to conduct sensitivity training for Homeland Security officials. A February press release from CAIR’s Chicago office says it met with Homeland Security immigration officials and made an agreement to “conduct sensitivity training to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers and possibly prison personnel.”

When asked, officials from Homeland Security denied CAIR's claims, and a check of a database of government contracts since 2000 indicated that in fact CAIR was never awarded neither a grant nor a government contract.

A Homeland Security official noted:

The department does not have a formalized relationship with that particular organization. We do have formalized relations with other community groups with whom we do contracts for training and consultation on matters that are specific to a given community.

It is not uncommon for that particular organization to issue a press release attempting to overstate their interaction with the department. [emphasis added]

That was then. But what about now? 

It seems that CAIR is still desperate to stay in the spotlight.
How desperate?

The Middle East Forum (MEF) reported last year that CAIR opposed the appointment of a Muslim federal judge:

In a historic June 10 vote, the US Senate confirmed Judge Zahid Quraishi's appointment to the US District Court for New Jersey, making him the first Muslim federal judge in American history. Although the nomination received bipartisan support, an unlikely source sharply criticized Quraishi's appointment: a leading civil rights organization that claims to speak on behalf of Muslim American interests.

..."I would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values," said Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR's San Francisco branch, a supposedly non-partisan Islamic civil rights group. "It's not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it's insulting," she added.

While the reasons given for opposing Quraishi were based on issues relating to his record, many Muslim groups were supportive of the appointment.

MEF suggests that CAIR's motives stem from jealousy -- and an inability to compete with an up-and-coming rival Muslim group:

Despite its former proximity to the White House, CAIR failed to accomplish what a relative newcomer to Muslim political advocacy circles has achieved in the first months of the Biden administration. Founded in 2017, the American Pakistani Public Affairs Committee (APPAC) is loudly claiming credit for Quraishi's nomination, insisting that it played an "instrumental role" in selecting the judge from among "dozens of potential candidates."

...While CAIR's own political action committee raised a paltry $4,250 in federal donations last election cycle, APPAC gave over $1.3 million to the Biden campaign in a single August fundraiser. During this event, Biden was chummy with Ahmed, calling the APPAC chairman a "vouching force" in his community. [emphasis added]

Billoo's latest attack shows that CAIR is not about to change what it sees as a tried and true formula of radicalization and attacks on the Jewish community to maintain its status, at the expense of American Muslims.

When I asked Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, director of EMET’s Program for Emerging Democratic Voices From the Middle East, about how representative CAIR was of the Muslim community, he replied:

I'm sure a majority of American Muslims are not interested nor invested in any kind of activism and just trying to live normally. However I'm sure CAIR supporters numbers went up due to the radicalizing effect on the progressive wave on Muslim youth.

What will it take before CAIR is seen for what it is?








Saturday, January 15, 2022

  • Saturday, January 15, 2022
  • Elder of Ziyon



In November,  Zahra Billoo, executive-director of the San Francisco Bay Area branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), gave a public speech at an American Muslims for Palestine conference where she said that every Jewish organization in America that is not overtly anti-Zionist is "the enemy." This includes any Jewish organization that supports peace with Palestinians. 

When CAIR had a chance to condemn this blatantly antisemitic speech and to banish Billoo as a hater, they instead chose to support her and to claim that since she mentioned that Jews who actively fight against Israel like IfNotNow are not enemies, then there was nothing antisemitic about her saying that every single synagogue in America is an enemy of Muslims.

How does one treat an enemy? By attacking it!

CAIR supports antisemitism.

Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani terrorist who shot at FBI and Army personnel with an M4 carbine, and who the man who held Jews hostage in a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas calls his "sister," is an unrepentant antisemite. She refused to be defended by Jewish lawyers.  
She said the case against her was a Jewish conspiracy, and demanded that no Jews be allowed on the jury, and that all prospective jurors be DNA-tested and excluded from the jury at her trial "if they have a Zionist or Israeli background." 
While at Federal Medical Center, Carswell, she wrote a letter to the warden to give to President Obama, asserting, "Study the history of the Jews. They have always back-stabbed everyone who has taken pity on them and made the 'fatal' error of giving them shelter.... and it is this cruel, ungrateful back-stabbing of the Jews that has caused them to be mercilessly expelled from wherever they gain strength. This why 'holocausts' keep happening to them repeatedly! If they would only learn to be grateful and change their behavior!! ..."
CAIR supports Aafia Siddiqui.



CAIR supports antisemitism. 

Only last week, CAIR released a report on "Islamophobia" and falsely claimed that mainstream Jewish federations and Jewish-controlled foundations are "funding Islamophobia" because they give money to organizations that defend Israel or expose Muslim bigotry. Essentially they declared all Jews who support Israel's existence as "Islamophobic."

CAIR supports antisemitism. 

Why has the current terrorist attacked a synagogue when Jews and Israel had nothing to do with Siddiqui's arrest?

Because of organizations like CAIR and the endemic antisemitism in the Muslim world, Jews are the enemy. It makes perfect sense that a synagogue should be a target, because Jews symbolize everything they hate.

CAIR now pretends to condemn this attack in Texas. But they time that they should have condemned antisemitism was when Zahra Billoo said that synagogues are the enemy. The time that they should have condemned antisemitism was when Aafia Siddiqui told her judge that she would not accept Jews as lawyers or jurors. 

CAIR is engaging in public relations. Its own actions and choices for who it defends shows that it supports antisemitism and it supports any Muslim who attacks Jews. 

CAIR is not considered fringe by the mainstream Muslim community - they are mainstream. The media is now scrambling to interview "good Muslims" who condemn this attack,  but because the earlier Muslim antisemitism from AMP and CAIR does not get media coverage, they don't known enough to ask the basic question: do you consider Zionist synagogues the enemy like CAIR does?

There are others who are culpable as well. The media, by downplaying Muslim antisemitism and by parroting the far-Left lie that the far-Right is the only type of antisemitism is worth highlighting. Even today, most media isn't mentioning the obvious fact that an attack on a synagogue is antisemitic - that word is mysteriously missing from coverage. From the media, one wouldn't know that there have been many attempts by Muslims at attacking synagogues since 9/11. 

Synagogues must have iron gates and armed guards because of Muslim, Black and far Right antisemitism. 

According to the far Left, and CAIR, the media that follows them, antisemitism is only a far Right problem. 

CAIR is part of the problem. And until the media recognizes that this group that is respected by so many is in fact a hate group and treats it as such, we will be having more Colleyvilles.






Wednesday, January 12, 2022



The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which recently defended one of its officials who labeled virtually every organized synagogue in America "enemies," just issued a report on "Islamophobia in the mainstream."

The main point of the report is identifying "26 Islamophobia Network groups (that) spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about Muslims and Islam."

The members of this supposed "Islamophobia network" include Americans for Peace and Tolerance, CAMERA, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Gatestone Institute, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and The Lawfare Project.

The idea that this is an "Islamophobia Network" is insane. 

But then they go into actual antisemitism. They identify some of the funders of these supposedly Islamophobic groups, and - surprise, surprise - they find Jews!

The Adelson Family Foundation, Arie and Ida Crown Memorial, Combined Jewish Philanthropies
of Greater Boston, Hochberg Family Foundation, Irving I Moskowitz Foundation, Jewish Communal
Fund, Jewish Community Federation of SF, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Fed. Council of Greater L.A., Kovner Foundation, Mirowski Family Foundation, Mitzi and Warren Eisenberg Family Foundation, and the The Jewish Community Foundation, plus others. All major Jewish charities or charities that give heavily to Jewish causes are..."Funders of Anti-Muslim Bigotry!"

Those irresponsible, bigoted Jews!

CAIR defines Islamophobia as "closed-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims." So it should be simple for them to identify how, exactly, these organizations are Islamophobic, right?

Not one of the organizations I am familiar with fits their own definition of Islamophobic.

Here's how they describe CAMERA, the watchdog organization that points out anti-Israel bias in the news media: "This organization serves as a lobbying and media-monitoring group that spreads misinformation pertaining to Muslim Americans. Its overall mission is to undermine the credibility of Muslim American individuals and organizations. "

Good to know that CAIR knows CAMERA's mission better than CAMERA does!

They say the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is a "neoconservative lobbying group [that] encourages the Islamophobic “war on terror” narrative and policies." They say the phrase "war on terror" is Islamophobic. George W. Bush, who coined the term, must be an Islamophobe too.

Gatestone Institute is "an anti-Muslim hate group." 
Investigative Project on Terrorism is a "hate group." 
The Middle East Forum is "an anti-Muslim policy center that produces and perpetuates hate speech, propaganda, and misinformation." 
The Lawfare Project is an  "anti-Muslim hate group."

In none of these cases can they find evidence that supports their definition of Islamophobia. In a couple of cases they dig up old contextless quotes from members of these organizations that they claim are Islamophobic, but even those do not fit their own definition. 

Their description of MEMRI is particularly absurd: "MEMRI is a pseudo-research organization that carefully selects and purposefully inaccurately translates news from Muslim-majority organizations to
provide justification for anti-Muslim propaganda. The organization’s translations have been widely criticized for inaccuracy and inflammatory representation. "

MEMRI's translations are accurate, full stop. I couldn't find a single criticism of the thousands of MEMRI translations that is less than ten years old. This academic paper criticizing MEMRI from a native Arabic speaker at a UAE university admits MEMRI's "accurate translations on a linguistic level." 

The only thing these organizations have in common is that they do not support CAIR's antisemitism and its historic support for terror groups. That is CAIR's real definition of "Islamophobia."

The ADL - which somehow is not on CAIR's list - describes the organization and its founders:

Some of CAIR’s current leadership had early connections with organizations that are or were affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is designated as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) by the United States and is also viewed by the EU as a global terrorist organization.

In addition, some of CAIR’s leadership have used inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric that on a number of occasions has veered into antisemitic tropes related to Jewish influence over the media or political affairs.

Key CAIR leaders have frequently expressed vociferous opposition to Israel and Zionism, claiming at times that Zionism and Zionists are fundamentally racist. (See below: Key CAIR Staff on Israel and Zionism).

Antipathy towards Israel has been a CAIR staple since the group was founded in 1994 by several leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a now defunct organization that was once described by the U.S. government as part of “Hamas’ propaganda apparatus.” Nihad Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s first Executive Director, a position he retains today. IAP was active in the U.S. from 1981 until about 2004, and categorically rejected a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, writing in a December 1989 communique: “The only way to liberate Palestine, all of Palestine, is the path of Jihad…Hamas is the conscience of the Palestinian Mujahid people.”  In 1987, immediately following the establishment of Hamas, IAP began to print and distribute Hamas literature, including Hamas communiqués and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

 In response to CAIR’s involvement with the Holy Land Foundation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation distanced itself from the organization. In the past, the FBI had interacted with CAIR representatives regarding community outreach activities, civil rights complaints and criminal investigations. However, in 2008, the FBI issued an instruction to its field offices that they should sharply curtail “non-investigative interactions” with CAIR.This instruction was elucidated in an April 2009 letter to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, in which the FBI explained that it would cease to liaise with CAIR “until [they] resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas.” To our knowledge as of this writing, the FBI has not retracted this protocol.

 CAIR has supported and advocated for Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted by an Israeli court in 1970 for her role in a 1969 bombing of a supermarket that killed two Israeli students, and who was later released as part of a prisoner exchange. 
Israel-haters love to say that Zionists falsely accuse critics of Israel of antisemitism. As usual, this is projection. This report proves conclusively that CAIR falsely accuses critics of Islamic terrorist organizations of being "Islamophobic."

 






AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive